I want everybody to read this

And yet every other review of MP3 gave it 9.0 + ?hyruledweller

so far. there have only been five though. somebody has to be the lowest.

There have been lots of cows and sheep whining about gamespot being biased, but fact is you can't blindly trust a game to get AAA just because games in the past have done the same.

I have a feeling that Halo 3 will flop, because lemmings are hyping the game because it's halo and not because the game itself is worth the AAA status.

If you can narrow that to two sentences, then I'll read it Casey ;)ganon546

i can do it in two words "it sucks".the medal system which is more complicated than using numbers,the rounding off just to get pressure off their back and they better realize that people would rather hear9.3 than 9.0.wether u think is insignificant,for fans are not.

Yes, the biological need of console bashing... It's practiacally down to a science...

ssbfalco

Yes, but without it System Wars woudl be REALLY boring!

I have read it, like everyone who complains should.

great more sticky threads to suck the fun out of this place.

i really don't think we need a sticky over the review system, if you don't like the new system then leave SW. Simple

[QUOTE="hyruledweller"]And yet every other review of MP3 gave it 9.0 + ?CaseyWegner

so far. there have only been five though. somebody has to be the lowest.

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]

[QUOTE="hyruledweller"]And yet every other review of MP3 gave it 9.0 + ?prozack28

so far. there have only been five though. somebody has to be the lowest.

then i suppose you've never disagreed with a gamerankings score...ever.

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]

[QUOTE="hyruledweller"]And yet every other review of MP3 gave it 9.0 + ?prozack28

so far. there have only been five though. somebody has to be the lowest.

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]

[QUOTE="hyruledweller"]And yet every other review of MP3 gave it 9.0 + ?prozack28

so far. there have only been five though. somebody has to be the lowest.

I disagree. Gamespot just doesn't give overinflated reviews like every other site. At this site, a high score actually means something as opposed to some other review sites that hand out high scores for any game they find the least bit enjoyable. An 8.5 is a great score for a game at GS. Just because you do not agree with the score of a game that you probably have not even played yet, doesn't mean the review is low quality.

i read it. i noticed jeff is editorial director. he's the boss. i guess that explains him being able to keep his job. he stated that reviews aren't openions, he's wrong. he states that reviews are extensivly fact checked before posting. he makes alot of claims that are disproved by gamestop changing the review score of overloard due to reviewing a preview copy. if it were extensivly fact checked he would have known that bioshock isn't crash prone.

he states that the reviews are for those with limited time and money not the hardcore. then he says pc games are reviewed on high end pcs, which only the hardcore would spend the money on. in the end it seems the reviews are for casuals by casuals that think they are alot more important than the really are. jeff should talk to che over at turn ten. che used to run 1up before he went to work for a developer (he works for the forza2 developer now). che has said that people that work at game wev sites think they know it all, but when they start actually working on games instead of just talking about them they realize they didn't know squat. well squat isn't the word he used but it started with the same letter.

you have to remember that for gamesite staff it's their job, and nobody likes their job forever. it becomes tediouse and thats why they have to lure us to work with paychecks. people that work at donut stores dont eat donuts. people that work at pizza hut dont eat the pizza after a while. if you work with games after a while you wont like them as much either. being rewarded (payed) for something destroyes the intrinsic motivation for it, it stops being fun.

i read it. i noticed jeff is editorial director. he's the boss. i guess that explains him being able to keep his job. he stated that reviews aren't openions, he's wrong. he states that reviews are extensivly fact checked before posting. he makes alot of claims that are disproved by gamestop changing the review score of overloard due to reviewing a preview copy. if it were extensivly fact checked he would have known that bioshock isn't crash prone.

he states that the reviews are for those with limited time and money not the hardcore. then he says pc games are reviewed on high end pcs, which only the hardcore would spend the money on. in the end it seems the reviews are for casuals by casuals that think they are alot more important than the really are. jeff should talk to che over at turn ten. che used to run 1up before he went to work for a developer (he works for the forza2 developer now). che has said that people that work at game wev sites think they know it all, but when they start actually working on games instead of just talking about them they realize they didn't know squat. well squat isn't the word he used but it started with the same letter.

you have to remember that for gamesite staff it's their job, and nobody likes their job forever. it becomes tediouse and thats why they have to lure us to work with paychecks. people that work at donut stores dont eat donuts. people that work at pizza hut dont eat the pizza after a while. if you work with games after a while you wont like them as much either. being rewarded (payed) for something destroyes the intrinsic motivation for it, it stops being fun.

rdo

Nice comparisons. I think that reviewers review sooo many games that they stop asking the biggest question: "is this game fun?" and instead look for stupid nit-picks to bring down the score of a game (an optional guide arrow, for example). While I'm not a fan of Nintendo, I do find it hard to believe that GS is the only site, thus far, to score MP3 lower than a 9.0. They did the same thing with Bioshock. Expect the same thing with Halo 3 and others. The reviews lately seem hesitant to award a game for being fun and instead focus on stupid little issues.

Link:

http://www.gamepro.com/nintendo/wii/games/reviews/131309.shtml

[QUOTE="rdo"]

i read it. i noticed jeff is editorial director. he's the boss. i guess that explains him being able to keep his job. he stated that reviews aren't openions, he's wrong. he states that reviews are extensivly fact checked before posting. he makes alot of claims that are disproved by gamestop changing the review score of overloard due to reviewing a preview copy. if it were extensivly fact checked he would have known that bioshock isn't crash prone.

he states that the reviews are for those with limited time and money not the hardcore. then he says pc games are reviewed on high end pcs, which only the hardcore would spend the money on. in the end it seems the reviews are for casuals by casuals that think they are alot more important than the really are. jeff should talk to che over at turn ten. che used to run 1up before he went to work for a developer (he works for the forza2 developer now). che has said that people that work at game wev sites think they know it all, but when they start actually working on games instead of just talking about them they realize they didn't know squat. well squat isn't the word he used but it started with the same letter.

you have to remember that for gamesite staff it's their job, and nobody likes their job forever. it becomes tediouse and thats why they have to lure us to work with paychecks. people that work at donut stores dont eat donuts. people that work at pizza hut dont eat the pizza after a while. if you work with games after a while you wont like them as much either. being rewarded (payed) for something destroyes the intrinsic motivation for it, it stops being fun.

REVENGEotSITH

Nice comparisons. I think that reviewers review sooo many games that they stop asking the biggest question: "is this game fun?" and instead look for stupid nit-picks to bring down the score of a game (an optional guide arrow, for example). While I'm not a fan of Nintendo, I do find it hard to believe that GS is the only site, thus far, to score MP3 lower than a 9.0. They did the same thing with Bioshock. Expect the same thing with Halo 3 and others. The reviews lately seem hesitant to award a game for being fun and instead focus on stupid little issues.

[QUOTE="LINKloco"][QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]

http://www.gamespot.com/misc/reviewguidelines.html

read it and understand it.

CaseyWegner

i'm sure you've agreed with every single gamerankings average ever.

What does game rankings have to do with GS? I have no problem with the outcome of a bunch of averaged scores.

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"][QUOTE="LINKloco"][QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]

http://www.gamespot.com/misc/reviewguidelines.html

read it and understand it.

LINKloco

i'm sure you've agreed with every single gamerankings average ever.

What does game rankings have to do with GS? I have no problem with the outcome of a bunch of averaged scores.

if you've ever liked a low rated game or didn't like a high rated game, i'm sure people would think it would be odd of you too. just saying...

I expected the new GameSpot system to be a little more strict with handing out AAA games. And I don't mind that at all. The new review system is much better, and you can easily find out the good qualitys and bad qualitys of a game much quicker. You guys just don't like it because your games aren't getting the scores you want. Boo hoo. Live with it.

Half of you probably didn't even read the link about the new score system Casey provided.

if you've ever liked a low rated game or didn't like a high rated game, i'm sure people would think it would be odd of you too. just saying...

CaseyWegner

Sure, if the game was consistently scored bad across the board and I loved it, but it's different with those three games. I'm not saying that 8.5 is a bad score, it's great, but yet GS seems to be the oddball with all other reviews out for these three games. After GS states: "The rating we assign to each game is intended to give you an at-a-glance sense of the overall quality of the game relative to other games on the same platform." I just can't see the gamers working at GS admitting that WarioWareSM is the betterof these other games.

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]if you've ever liked a low rated game or didn't like a high rated game, i'm sure people would think it would be odd of you too. just saying...

LINKloco

Sure, if the game was consistently scored bad across the board and I loved it, but it's different with those three games. I'm not saying that 8.5 is a bad score, it's great, but yet GS seems to be the oddball with all other reviews out for these three games. After GS states: "The rating we assign to each game is intended to give you an at-a-glance sense of the overall quality of the game relative to other games on the same platform." I just can't see the gamers working at GS admitting that WarioWareSM is the betterof these other games.

how is it different from you loving a game that got mostly bad scores?

""How come some of your scores are so much lower than those of other publications I've seen? Are you all just jaded or something?"
On the contrary, we love games so much that we hold them to a higher standard. All of our editors were once avid consumers who relied on gaming publications to inform them about what to buy next. However, each of us has been burned at one time or another--we've each bought a highly rated game only to find that what we paid for wasn't nearly as good as what we read about. As a result, our commitment to our readers is to provide them with unflinchingly honest and thorough appraisals of games. Sometimes the truth hurts, especially when you've been eagerly awaiting a given game for months or even longer, but we think you'll appreciate our candor in the long run."

I hope that answers some peoples question on why they score games lower than other sites sometimes.

i think i know why the review system has changed

i mean it would have looked pretty stupid to see an 8.5 next to

10 graphics

10 gameplay

10 sound

9 tilt

9 lasting appeal

(the scores ive gathered from other corruption reviews)

this review system doesn't really make it easier to score higher, itmakes it easier for gs to score games lower. im not happy with the review but i will be happy if they stay consistent and give the same complaints of "feeling the same" to the seventh ratchet and clank game since 2001, and halo 3 amongst others, but i have a feeling that halo will get a 9.5 next to the words "its same halo we know and love" :roll:

It's very hard to disagree with a Gamerankings average. Even if you like the game.

I read this everyday before I go to bed.white_sox

that's all i ask.

[QUOTE="white_sox"]I read this everyday before I go to bed.CaseyWegner

that's all i ask.

[QUOTE="LINKloco"][QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]if you've ever liked a low rated game or didn't like a high rated game, i'm sure people would think it would be odd of you too. just saying...

CaseyWegner

Sure, if the game was consistently scored bad across the board and I loved it, but it's different with those three games. I'm not saying that 8.5 is a bad score, it's great, but yet GS seems to be the oddball with all other reviews out for these three games. After GS states: "The rating we assign to each game is intended to give you an at-a-glance sense of the overall quality of the game relative to other games on the same platform." I just can't see the gamers working at GS admitting that WarioWareSM is the betterof these other games.

how is it different from you loving a game that got mostly bad scores?

im not going to lie, the old system was better.Haziqonfire

Agreed it was more accurate.

But Gamespot is one of the most relieable sources when it comes to reviews. Other sites give games a good score because of tehir name most time or the hype. Gamespot doesn't do that.

And from what I've heard and seen most Sheep will buy a game because of its name. They will go out and buy a 50$ Zelda when the game's value should be at 40 or 30$

[QUOTE="Haziqonfire"]im not going to lie, the old system was better.Silvereign

Agreed it was more accurate.

But Gamespot is one of the most relieable sources when it comes to reviews. Other sites give games a good score because of tehir name most time or the hype. Gamespot doesn't do that.

And from what I've heard and seen most Sheep will buy a game because of its name. They will go out and buy a 50$ Zelda when the game's value should be at 40 or 30$

I think most would agree ZeldaTP was well worth $50.

This wont stop people from bashing or claiming ownage. But it might stop people for complaining about Gamespot's reviews.

"8.0-8.5: Great This range refers to great games that are excellent in almost every way and whose few setbacks probably aren't too important. We highly recommend games in the upper half of this range, since they tend to be good enough to provide an enjoyable experience to fans of the particular genre and to new players alike."

Describes Metroid perfectly in my opinion.

I'd say that your rating system is flawed when Matt C. predicts in his own review that a "certain site" will give MP3 an 8.5. Gamespot's rating system has lost all credibility for me.

This piece here in particular seals the deal to me:

"Wait, reviews are just opinions. Right?"
Actually, we don't think so. We make no excuses for our verdicts about games and believe our reviews stand for themselves. While our reviews, of course, do contain an element of subjectivity to them, we see the process of reviewing games as one that primarily involves the reporting of facts. To an extent, we naturally color these facts based on our own experiences of having spent much time playing other games in the past, but we make every effort to look at every game on its own merits, and we describe each game in the most factual terms possible. To this end, in the rare event that one of our reviews contains a factual inaccuracy, we will correct the inaccuracy and will acknowledge it in an editor's note that's appended to the end of the review.

Casey your gameranking arguement is weak. I can just say sure I agree withevery scorethat I have seen. Would you like to givea example of game with an average that by system wars standards makes no sense?TruManty

not one that everybody would agree on. ;)

my beef is the consistancy (which casey has failed to address ;)) even in the same review.

Read the text for the medals that MP3 got then read the negatives.

my beef is the consistancy (which casey has failed to address ;)) even in the same review.

Read the text for the medals that MP3 got then read the negatives.

Raoul_Duke_HST

So something which overall is good can't have some issues?

http://www.gamespot.com/misc/reviewguidelines.html

read it and understand it.

CaseyWegner

gamespot really doesn't care what people whine about in here. CaseyWegner

But they still changed a game before because of complaints like Shenmue for example. So obviously, they care about other people feelings..

i read it and understand it -- but i still think it's a silly rating system to be honest. it's basically a way to be kinder to developers, more grey area in ratings = more blending in terms of title ratings... i mean seriously, theres what,20 different possible ratings now compared to the previous 200? ok then.

i'd also like to point out the irony in the first point 'we cater to the discriminate gamer' -- lol, by what? by introducing a ratings system that is 10x more indiscriminate than the last? sheesh. i pity the fool that swallows this.

[QUOTE="Raoul_Duke_HST"]

my beef is the consistancy (which casey has failed to address ;)) even in the same review.

Read the text for the medals that MP3 got then read the negatives.

cakeorrdeath

So something which overall is good can't have some issues?

i think his point is that the previous system could account for (and represent) the extent of the issues - when you eliminate the point system and replace it with rounded scores (worst scientific method possible in the entire world in terms of defining something categorically) you get consistent scores that shouldn't necessarily be consistent.

is this your way of defending GS's review of MP3?hamstergeddon

no. it's my way of throwing heavy objects at people without really throwing heavy objects at people.